Backed by former skills minister Anne Milton, “Your Future, Your Choice” has gone live today on Pearson’s website, aiming to give young and adult learners the “opportunity to voice their opinions on what they want for their future education”.
It comes amid a Department for Education review that plans to limit funding for applied general qualifications, such as BTECs, that compete with T Levels and A-levels by 2023.
The DfE claims there is currently a “confusing landscape” of over 12,000 courses on offer to young people at level 3 and below, with multiple qualifications in the same subject areas available – many of which are “poor quality and offer little value to students or employers”.
As well as Milton, who was in post when the DfE first announced the review in March 2019, “Your Future, Your Choice” is backed by five-time Olympic medallist gymnast Max Whitlock.
A Pearson spokesperson explained that the campaign will be giving students, educators and employers the “chance to read more about the government’s proposals for post-16 qualifications, encouraging them to respond directly to the DfE consultation running until January 15 in the case of educators and employers, and encouraging students to share their BTEC success stories with us on social media with #YourFutureYourChoice or submit longer ones on our website”.
They added that while Pearson supports the introduction of T Levels and shares the government’s vision for “outstanding outcomes for every learner”, the awarding body also thinks “offering learners a choice in what qualification suits their career aspirations best is the right way to support them and the UK economy – both now and in the future.
“BTECs have been at the heart of national need for many years and continue to transform lives and careers. We’re encouraging young or adult learners to have their say on their future education options.”
To mark the launch of their campaign, Pearson has also published research that found nine in ten young students believe it’s important for there to be a wide choice of options available to help prepare them for their futures.
Ofqual is seeking views on its plans to release advance notice of topics ahead of exams next year, suggesting the information should not be so detailed that a student could memorise an answer.
In a 10-day consultation launched today, the exams regulator has set out three principles on how it thinks the advance topics plan should work.
The exam boards will decide what information will be provided to teachers and students before exams, and they will publish it at the end of January, Ofqual said.
The regulator has acknowledged there is a risk that “students who are able to revise all of the content for a subject will be better prepared to progress to higher level study”.
But without the changes, Ofqual says students whose education has been the most disrupted by the pandemic could find it difficult to prepare for exams.
The first principle they are seeking opinions on is that the advanced information “should not be so detailed that students are able to memorise answer to write in the exam”.
They say it would give an advantage to students who are good at memorising or rote learning, and it wouldn’t be a “true assessment of the student’s ability”.
“Students might also memorise answers that someone else had written, so the exam would not be a true assessment of the student’s ability in a subject,” the consultation add.
The second is that the information should “not be so extensive or specific that it will damage a student’s progression to higher level qualifications in the summer”.
“Students will focus on the topics that they know will be covered in the exam, but there are some aspects of the content that will be important to be able to study the subject at a higher level,” the document states. “The advance information shouldn’t discourage students from investing in further learning.”
Finally, Ofqual says it should still be possible to “possible to identify stronger and weaker candidates, despite the use of advance information. It shouldn’t allow students to predict the questions and prepare answers in advance.”
Ofqual is also consulting on providing support materials, such as formula and equations, as well as any equality implications on the plans.
The consultation, which closes on December 20, can be viewed here.
A confidential document that shows the criteria the government used to choose the level 3 courses in the prime minister’s lifetime skills guarantee has been leaked to FE Week.
It shows the methodology adopted by the Department for Education involved wage outcomes, alignment with government “priorities” and the “ability to address labour market need”.
The list of nearly 400 qualifications that made the cut, which will be available to adults to study from April for free if they do not already hold a full level 3 qualification – equivalent to two A-levels – has been unveiled today but controversially excludes major economic sectors such as hospitality, tourism, media and arts.
So how did the government decide which courses were in and which were out? The documents show a two-step approach was used. Here are the details.
Step 1 – wage outcomes
Firstly, the DfE analysed the existing sector subject areas (SSAs) to “understand the strength of their average wage outcomes, which is the most robust source of evidence we have to indicate the labour market value of approved qualifications”.
The data sources used were as follows:
“Median earnings per SSA five years after study for full level 3 achieved in 2011/12. This is our lead criterion, as this gives the most robust sense of long-term earnings potential.
“Median earnings per SSA three years after study for Full L3 achieved in 2013/14. This was included to sense-check earnings data five years post-achievement.
“Median earnings per SSA one year after study for Full L3 achieved in 2016/17. This was also included to sense-check earnings data five years post-achievement.”
The DfE says it then set a “sensible minimum threshold” for wage outcomes of £19,000, which is “broadly equivalent to the median wage for all level 3 SSAs considered when looking at wage outcomes five years after completion”.
“We then sifted through filtered qualifications data to understand which SSAs included 100 or more learning aims for certificates or diplomas amongst adult learners with prior attainment below level 3 in 2018/19,” the document continues.
“This is to ensure that the evidence base for our wage outcome data was large enough, and to ensure that will be sufficient learner demand to make delivery viable from 2021.”
Step 2 – expanding scope to include government priorities and areas of labour market need
The DfE says it acknowledged that wage data alone is “not an appropriate means of identifying qualifications with labour market value across the country” and that relying solely on this “may not result in a list that is inclusive enough to generate strong uptake and good labour market outcomes”.
Recognising that it may also be “appropriate” to include SSAs in which the government would like to see growth, despite low current uptake amongst adults, the department ensured qualifications with under 100 19+ learning aims in 2018/19, alongside those with potentially lower wage outcomes, were included in this evaluation.
“We have therefore taken the below steps to widen the scope of SSAs, which gave us an assessment of each SSA’s alignment with government priorities and ability to address economic need,” the document explains.
“We performed a qualitative evaluation of all SSAs regardless of the number of existing learning aims and wage outcomes. To do this, we assessed each SSAs’ alignment with the 2017 Industrial Strategy in the first instance (as per the existing High Value Course Premium (HVCP) methodology).
“However, using the Industrial Strategy alone may not produce an inclusive list of qualifications, and is not necessarily reflective of more recent government priorities. We therefore expanded the scope of ‘government priorities’ to include sectors referenced in more recent government announcements.
“We then scrutinised the list of SSAs against published analysis of current and future labour market need (such as the Migration Advisory Committee’s Shortage Occupation List at RQF level 3-5), which factored in impacts of Covid-19 and Brexit. We should note that measures of labour market demand are imperfect, and difficult to predict accurately in the current economic climate.”
By carrying out both of the above steps, the DfE identified those SSAs for inclusion in the targeted level 3 entitlement (see list pictured below).
The department adds that they believe these SSAs have the “strongest wage outcomes, alignment with government priorities and ability to address labour market need”.
In total there are 379 qualifications on the list (click here to view in full), which includes a mix of existing vocational and technical qualifications and A-levels.
There are 76 A-levels in total, including 10 A-levels in physics which are offered by different awarding organisations.
Others, like the Advanced Certificate in Bookkeeping, are too small to be counted as a full level 3 qualification.
Meanwhile, all Access to HE qualifications have been excluded as these are eligible for advanced learner loans that are written off upon completion of an HE course and are “not primarily aimed at facilitating immediate labour market outcomes”.
The DfE concludes that they believe the qualifications in scope for the level 3 targeted entitlement extension should focus on “providing the skills that will have immediate labour market value (i.e. they should not be primarily focused on gaining access to higher qualifications)”.
Yes. The DfE says it will keep the list under review and used its confidential briefing to ask awarding bodies to provide evidence for why other qualifications should be added, or why those included should be removed.
The current apprenticeships rate review is set to undergo its third consultation as the Education and Skills Funding Agency steps in to consider changes to its eligible costs policy.
The agency is expected to launch a review of its rules that decide what costs count towards apprenticeship training tomorrow – inviting 600 organisation to take part.
It comes after the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education announced last week that it would delay the outcome of its funding rate review until the agency’s work in this area is complete.
The IfATE’s funding band consultation was first launched in February and proposes a controversial new model that could see rates cut by over 40 per cent.
The institute then opened a second consultation on a revised “rates-based variable model” in August, but concerns were raised that apprenticeships would become unprofitable if current ineligible costs are excluded from the new model.
Ineligible costs for apprenticeships, under current ESFA policy, include “enrolment, induction, initial assessment, initial diagnostic testing, or similar activity”.
Writing for FE Week at the time of the IfATE’s second consultation, Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief policy officer Simon Ashworth questioned how these costs can be deemed ineligible “when these are activities mandated by the ESFA and/or an expectation of what Ofsted would expect to see during inspection”.
He said: “It is too easy for IfATE to pass the buck to the ESFA and argue that their hands are tied by the agency’s funding rules on eligible and ineligible costs.
“Both the institute and the ESFA need to work together to develop a solution; in AELP’s view, this means ESFA reviewing their funding rules on ineligible costs and the institute properly accounting for key mandated activity in the form of a general overhead input as part of their new funding band methodology model.”
Announcing the delay to its rate consultation last week, the IfATE said: “Many respondents noted that the model did not take account of those costs associated with the delivery of an apprenticeship which are not eligible for government funding.
“It is worth reiterating that eligible costs policy is outside the scope of this consultation, and there has been no change in this policy. Nevertheless, the ESFA have agreed in parallel to review current policy on eligible costs.”
The institute added that as the ESFA’s review of eligible costs may have an impact on the final funding model, “we need to ensure we understand these outcomes before we publish the full response to the consultation.
“We plan therefore to publish a full consultation response in parallel with the outputs from the testing work and the conclusion of ESFA’s review.”
Those organisations being invited to the ESFA’s review include provider representative bodies; apprenticeship trailblazer groups; employer providers; and the “top 30 main providers” funded by ESFA.
If an organisation does do not receive a direct invite they can contact their representative body or trailblazer contact and ask for their comments to be included in their response, the agency said.
No deadline for when the eligible costs review will conclude has been provided at this stage.
Almost 400 level 3 qualifications have been chosen for the prime minister’s lifetime skills guarantee – but major sectors including hospitality, tourism and media have been excluded as FE Week previously revealed.
The Department for Education has today published the list (click here) of qualifications that will be fully funded for adults without a full qualification at level 3 – equivalent to two full A-levels.
In total there are 379 qualifications on the list, although some (such as A levels in subjects such as physics) are the same qualification simply with a different awarding organisation and others that are not A levels, like the Advanced Certificate in Bookkeeping, are too small to be counted as a full level 3 qualification.
Backed with £95 million from the National Skills Fund and available from April 2021, the sectors involved include the likes of engineering, public services, construction and nursing.
However, as FE Week exclusively reported last month, key parts of the economy have been left out. Those excluded are deemed by the DfE to be a low priority with low wages, and include hospitality, media and arts, travel and tourism, sport and retail.
The government said the courses chosen for the offer are those that are “valued by employers”, with prime minister Boris Johnson adding that the lifetime skills guarantee will give “thousands of adults across the country the chance to do exactly that – as we build back better after the pandemic”.
But Tom Bewick, chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, hit out at this “top-down driven list cooked up in Whitehall”, which shows the DfE has gone for a “convoluted way of trying to ration limited public funds from the get go, while dressing the whole policy up as being an absolute free learning entitlement like access to the NHS”.
“Indeed, this is increasingly looking like neither lifetime skills or a guarantee, with some of the qualifications listed, like A-level physics, looking more like the government’s ideological obsession with science subjects rather than a focus on what a post-Covid economy many need,” he added.
The DfE has said the list will be kept under review to “ensure that it continues to respond to changing labour market needs”, and there will be a “facility” for awarding organisations and mayoral combined authorities to suggest additions to the list.
The lifetime skills guarantee builds on a policy that has been in place since 2013, which allows adults up to the age of 23 to be fully funded for their first full level 3 qualification from the adult education budget. Those aged 24 and over have since had to take out an advanced learner loan to pay for the course.
The current entitlement for those aged 23 and below spans nearly 1,200 qualifications, which is almost four times as many as those being made available under the lifetime skills guarantee.
The DfE said any qualifications included in this new level 3 adult offer, which are not included in the existing 19 to 23 statutory entitlement, will be made available for 19 to 23 learners. Any level 3 qualifications not currently included in this offer will continue to be eligible for advanced learner loans.
Funding for the new level 3 adult offer will be delivered through the Education and Skills Funding Agency in non-devolved areas, and delivered through Mayoral Combined Authorities and the Greater London Authority through a “separate grant”, on the “strict condition that funding is used for its intended purpose”.
FE Week asked how the funding would be dished out to providers, presumed to be through the adult education budget, but the DfE declined to comment beyond saying further information about these arrangements “will be made in due course”.
Association of Employment and Learning Providers managing director Jane Hickie said today’s announcement is a “positive step” but while the inclusion of sectors such as adult care is welcomed, “we can’t fail to hide our disappointment that hospitality and retail have been left off when these sectors are being hit so hard by the effects of the pandemic”.
“Time is short for making the required funding available to providers and colleges but we hope that the ESFA and the MCAs take care to allocate it to providers with a good track-record of delivery,” she added.
Association of Colleges chief executive David Hughes said the “breadth of courses” included in the list is “vital in supporting rural and urban economies to build back better”.
“The qualifications will help people to get the skills they need in the labour market emerging from the pandemic so it is great to see that essential services like child and social care have been included alongside engineering, agriculture, construction and many others,” he added.
Sector subject areas included:
Accounting and Finance
Agriculture
Building and construction
Business management
Child development and well-being
Engineering
Environmental conservation
Health and social care
Horticulture and forestry
ICT for users
ICT Practitioners
Manufacturing technologies
Mathematics and statistics
Medicine and Dentistry
Nursing and Subjects and Vocations Allied to Medicine
Public services
Science
Teaching and Lecturing
Transportation operations and maintenance
Warehousing and distribution
Sector subject areas excluded
Administration
Animal care and veterinary science
Anthropology
Archaeology and archaeological sciences
Architecture
Crafts, creative arts and design
Direct Learning Support
Economics
Geography
History
History, Philosophy and Theology
Hospitality and catering
Languages, literature and culture of the British Isles
Further education providers are being asked to remain “on-call” up to the day before Christmas eve to assist with contact tracing, but will be able to decide when they can be contacted.
New guidance sent out to providers by the Department for Education today, seen by FE Week, says it has agreed with Public Health England a six-day window after the final day of teaching in which FE providers and schools will be asked to remain contactable.
This is in order to help with tracing people who have been in contact with positive Covid-19 cases, with the guidance reading: “This will allow enough time for positive coronavirus cases to be identified and confirmed by a test and for relevant contacts in the education setting to be traced.”
Although providers have flexibility to set their own term dates, the department has advised them to finish face-to-face teaching on 17 December, to give a cut-off date for the six day window of 23 December.
“This change does not diminish our view that colleges should continue to maximise access to face-to-face teaching, supplemented by some remote education,” the guidance continues, adding: “If the amount of face-to-face planned hours for students are reduced before the end of term, we expect that additional face to face planned hours will be provided before the end of the study programme.”
After those six days, further education providers will not be reached by NHS Test and Trace for contact tracing.
The guidance also says that during those six days, staff are not being asked to be on-call at all times, and may set a limited period in the day to receive notification of positive cases so they can advise contacts of that case to self-isolate.
For most other European countries, education is deemed too important to leave to market forces, writes David Corke
Today we published a report showing that excessive competition has led to worse outcomes in 16-19 provision in terms of Ofsted grades, financial health and course choice.
We used various data sets including performance and participation data and matched this with the individualised learner records, to find out how competition was affecting outcomes, subject choice, finance and quality.
Whilst there was no clear impact on educational outcomes, those areas with high levels of competition saw their scores drop for inspection outcomes, their financial situation worsen and the range of academic and vocational courses available to learners significantly narrow.
To be clear, we at the Association of Colleges are not anti-competition. We think competition can be a good thing, where it is regulated and working.
The UK happens to be one of the few nations in Europe that has a highly marketized system, and it shows.
At CEDEFOP (the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training), the 2018 European Skills Index places the UK 23rd out of 28 countries for matching skills education with the needs of employers and the economy.
The UK system isn’t working properly. What’s clear is that for most other countries is that education is too important to leave to market forces.
When governments do not carefully coordinate and oversee provision as part of a whole system, the system becomes fragmented. This means some providers will offer what is popular, and not too costly, leading to a homogenized local offer with and too little specialist provision that employers are urgently calling for. This is just one of the reasons why the UK has a poor skills match score.
It means sufficiency in our system is poor. Sufficiency is defined by the Department for Education as the extent to which the full range of approved options is available and accessible to all those who qualify for them regardless of geography.
We must not confuse competition with choice – they are not the same thing. What our report shows is the more competitive a market, the less choice you have.
It also makes lots of provision unviable, meaning each provider simply cannot attract enough learner numbers. This is especially true of small providers – who happen to be both uneconomic and the worst performers from a quality perspective.
So we need a better approach.
One of the biggest problems is the confusing and complex array of regulators of our system, with no overarching rationale or duty of care for FE, HE and schools.
For now, we particularly need the FE commissioner and regional schools commissioners to work closely together when deciding if new provision can open up in any given location – especially as we are facing a demographic up-turn in the next few years.
That’s despite the fact that our research shows that where school sixth forms are dominant, colleges are smaller, and as a result there is a reduced choice of courses available in that area – resulting in there being fewer vocational and technical courses around.
There are encouraging signs the DfE is listening to the issues related to excessive competition
A whole place-based market approach is required. Even the area-based reviews didn’t take into account school sixth forms and other provider types. If they did, it would be such a complex landscape for them to assess, the reviews would probably still be going on now!
But this can be changed. Again, to be clear we are not calling for a single commissioner, but instead for a duty or requirement on commissioners to ensure that different kinds of provider do not destabilise each other.
There are encouraging signs the DfE is listening to the issues related to excessive competition.
If they are serious about the leveling up agenda, and skills education post-Covid, policy makers need to make sure this is reflected in the white paper.
David Phoenix, a scientist who heads a group bringing together FE, HE and academies, shows why experimenting with a new model is critical for technical education
Quite how long education secretaries in England have been banging on about “breaking down” the divisions between technical and academic education and their respective sectors is anyone’s guess.
At a speech in 1987, then-prime minister Margaret Thatcher bemoaned the “great difficulty” she had getting a new technical and vocational initiative “into a number of schools because the education system itself was not prepared to take it”.
Some 33 years on, and Boris Johnson has joined in as he says “now is the time to end the bogus distinction between FE and HE”. It’s almost a rite of passage for the education secretary to trot out such a speech at some point. College leaders can be forgiven for having especially well-exercised eye-roll muscles.
Perhaps it would always take a scientist, rather than a polemicist, to gather evidence on the problem, test a theory and, once proven, apply it properly. Professor David Phoenix, chief executive of the London South Bank University Group, is chancellor of the university and boss of its subsidiary education groups, South Bank Colleges (which oversees Lambeth College) and South Bank Academies, which has an engineering-focused academy and UTC. The idea is for seamless learning pathways between the academies, colleges and higher education. It’s the only group in the country encompassing three education sectors under one governance structure, and needed special sign-off from ministers.
But Phoenix, the son of a joiner, didn’t set out to go into educational reform. He just liked science club.
“One of my big influences was my chemistry teacher, because he not only had a passion for the subject, but he supported us to do our own experimentation.” At this time Phoenix was in sixth form, having moved as a child from inner-city Manchester to Bolton. His first school had left him with big gaps in reading, maths and drawing that took a long time to fill in, he explains. Only by A-level had he caught up. “My teacher allowed us to have our little science club in the lab at lunchtime, to try things out. We created models of structures and quite complex purifications, and I found that really exciting.”
Phoenix setting up experiments in primary schools
Having the freedom to try his own thing from scratch is something that Phoenix has valued – and made room for – throughout his life, sometimes to a quite extraordinary degree. First, he headed off to Liverpool University to study biochemistry and could be found in the labs once again, tinkering around. “I was lucky because there were lecturers there who let you go in and experiment, just try things out.” He recalls trying to find a solution to the fact most people hadn’t finished all their practical work. “We thought if we could just scale up our experiments, I could share some of my sample, and they could share some of theirs.” It didn’t go entirely to plan. “You find out with some of the more reactive elements, it’s not a good idea to scale them up! We certainly had a number of pieces of equipment that didn’t survive.” Behind what can seem a serious face at first, Phoenix’s eyes are definitely twinkling.
Exploding test tubes aside, by final year Phoenix was working on drug design. He went on to do a PhD “about a molecule called a penicillin-binding protein” – we’ll leave that there – and afterwards was awarded a grant to work at a top lab at Utrecht University, in the Netherlands. He was just 24. All this was cross-disciplinary work, he tells me. “I kind of worked at the interface of multiple sciences. I applied chemistry and biology, physics and biophysics.” Just so his calculations could keep up, he also did a part-time maths degree at the Open University.
An opportunity soon arose to transfer to the prestigious Pasteur Institute in Paris, but it was time to return to his now-wife, Stephanie, says Phoenix. He got a lectureship at the University of Central Lancashire, “and to be honest, I didn’t think I’d be there that long”.
But again, it was the freedom to experiment that kept Phoenix in situ. “That institution was absolutely fantastic in terms of the environment it created. I was allowed to just run with ideas.” Almost as though explaining a simple wish to pop to the shops, Phoenix then says: “I had an idea to develop a Centre for Forensic Science. The idea was quite straightforward: bring together practitioners with scientists, so ex-police officers, crime scene specialists, biologists and chemists.” It sounds madly fun, especially the “automotive crime scene” garage. “We mocked up break-ins, accidents, and we had people go in and take DNA samples. They had to put knowledge into practice.”
We mocked up break-ins, accidents, and we had people go in and take DNA samples
As with his scientific research, Phoenix sought to pull together disciplines and professions, applying different kinds of knowledge so better ways of working might be discovered. As dean and later deputy vice chancellor at the University of Central Lancashire, he remodelled the school of biosciences and created a new school of pharmacy with industry links. The strap line for the latter? “Fit to practise.”
It was in 2013, a few years after being awarded an OBE for services to science and higher education, that Phoenix took the vice chancellor role at London South Bank University. It was “not seen as a happy institution”, he says. “It wasn’t performing very well, but the potential was fantastic.” A huge consultation including everyone from “professors and cleaners” was launched and performance indicators began improving. Yet a Daily Mail article soon arrived, reporting that Phoenix had been given a £350,000 interest-free loan by the university to buy a house near the campus, prompting former education minister Lord Adonis to fume: “He already gets a salary of £295,000 […] I think this sort of behaviour by universities is disgraceful.” Phoenix says a condition of his new role was to live near the university, which the loan partially helped with and it was paid back once he’d been able to secure a mortgage.
At the House of Commons
Further challenges were to follow. Having taken on the 11-19 University Academy of Engineering South Bank in 2014, and the South Bank Engineering UTC two years later, Phoenix saw the benefits of taking over the struggling Lambeth College nearby to push forward the group’s reputation as a hub for technical and vocational education. Annual budgets, staffing arrangements and the college’s “strategic direction” would all pass over to the university under the transfer. Needless to say, there was resistance. “You can’t take ownership of an existing college, people said,” Phoenix tells me. “So I needed to get the skills minister [Robert Halfon] to agree to a national pilot, and he agreed.”
Finding the people in charge who will allow Phoenix and his team to experiment is clearly the man’s special skill. The college transferred to South Bank Colleges in January 2019. This January, construction will also begin on a £100 million Vauxhall Technical College, the second college in the group, with a proposed opening date of 2022.
The big question now is, is the experiment working? In 2017, the university achieved a silver rating in the government’s Teaching Excellence Framework and was named university of the year for graduate employment for the second year running in 2018 by the Times/Sunday Times “Good University Guide” ̶ meaning it looks increasingly strong as the powerhouse within the group.
The picture elsewhere is mixed, with signs of green shoots. University Academy of Engineering South Bank was graded ‘good’ by Ofsted in 2017, while South Bank Engineering UTC got ‘requires improvement’ last year, although inspectors praised staff for creating a “unique and nurturing learning environment”.
Lambeth College was also graded ‘requires improvement’ just four months after transferring last year, but a monitoring inspection in March this year found the proportion of 16- to 19-year-olds achieving their qualifications had “markedly improved”, leaders were taking “decisive action” on poor subcontractors and had “rapidly” changed the way they improve teaching.
So Phoenix is adamant – education provisions should work together like this. “One of my issues with the Sainsbury review [on technical education, in 2016] is that it spoke about learners having ‘choice’. But the problem is, you don’t know what you don’t know. What we’re doing is providing taster sessions for the college, the academy, the UTC, for students across the group. A student might go through the academy, do a level 2 at college, do an apprenticeship, or go on to HE for a business degree.” Phoenix explains that the proportion of learners getting level 4s in this country will not improve unless the “supply chain” is linked up in this way: “This requires FE-HE partnerships, and I think there is a key role for UTCS.”
It’s a compelling vision, and typically Phoenix has yet again broken the box with a new initiative. When apprenticeships for 15 of his UTC students were cancelled this year, his team “created a year 14” so they could stay on for an extended diploma and a higher national certificate exam with the support of the university. “This gives them the chance to get a level 4 at no cost to them,” explains Phoenix. This kind of year 14 offer “could really differentiate UTCs from academies,” he adds.
Phoenix in his role as advisor at the University of Guyana
Last but not least, Phoenix recommends spreading good practice around the entire system – and thinking beyond the usual horizons, he means overseas too. As an advisor on science to the University of Guyana, he tells me “there is so much the college sector can offer to other countries in need of vocational education”.
It doesn’t seem too excessive to say that skills minister Gillian Keegan would do well to pay attention to what Phoenix is up to in this corner of London. If his performance indicators – particularly at the UTC and college – keep moving upwards, he may well prove a model for breaking down tired distinctions. And ultimately, for allowing educators to keep on “trying out”.
The Association of Colleges has called for an end to competition in the FE market and for government to force collaboration between all providers which funding is conditional on.
The membership body has today published a report that claims competition has had a negative effect on choice, quality and the delivery of specialist courses and that “excessive” provision can “destabilise and fragment the post-16 education system at area level”.
Under a series of proposals put forward for greater coordination through a “place-based managed market”, the AoC calls for a “single post-16 commissioning and regulatory process” which applies to “all providers”, including school sixth-forms and independent training providers, to “promote efficiency, sufficiency, quality and equality and ends siloed regulation”.
The association also says a structure is needed which allows “strong, anchor institutions”, such as “successful colleges” to “lead provision and their area”.
There should be “clear conditions for funding, market entry and continued market presence based on strong local co-ordination”, it adds.
And under a new “rules-based framework”, the DfE should “require providers to engage with area coordination, with a duty to establish network strategies” and that there should be targets for “minimum and average class sizes for all providers”.
Ofsted should then inspect against this framework “to ensure that public resources are being deployed efficiently and responsibly”.
The report, titled ‘The impact of competition in post-16 education & training’, builds on the recommendations from the Independent Commission on the College of the Future report for England which last month called for new legislation to force all colleges to be part of “networks” where funding and accountability ultimately lies.
It comes ahead of the imminent FE white paper.
AoC chief executive David Hughes claimed that the recommendations put forward today would not mean a loss of autonomy for colleges, but that it should be colleges who lead on area co-ordination because they are “the major providers in an area and they can be given the responsibility to engage others, including employers, ITPs, schools, universities”.
Explaining the approach further to FE Week, Hughes said: “It is not going to be sitting around a table and deciding, for example, sixth form A delivers A-level maths, while sixth form B delivers BTECs in performing arts. That is not what we’re proposing, we are coming at it from the other end of saying what you want in an area is to look at what is needed broadly and to think about the curriculum offer spread and the levels to broadly meet the needs of the population and where there are gaps or problems you might do something.
“We’re not saying that somebody will be told they’re not allowed to deliver a qualification.”
Reacting to today’s AoC report, Association of Employment and Learning Providers managing director Jane Hickie said: “AELP is reluctant to comment again so soon after the commission’s report. But we honestly find the report’s references to it being about 16 to 19 provision and the references to markets confusing when forced collaboration between all types of providers across all post-16 provision appears to be the prescribed solution. What is a ‘managed market’ really in this case other than an exercise in control by a lead college?
“If the AoC is right to point the finger at the government for being at fault for being the market purchaser, then surely the answer is to make the individual learner the purchaser with the individual exercising choice via learning accounts over properly accredited courses supplied by government approved providers of whatever type. What is there to fear from individual choice?”
A Department for Education spokesperson said: “Our priority is making sure people across the country gain the skills we know employers value and that will help our economy recover as we build back better from coronavirus.
“Our ambitious FE White Paper will set out plans to build on and strengthen the excellent work that is already happening, so we can unlock even more potential and level up skills and opportunities across the county. More will be announced in due course.”
Here are the AoC’s policy recommendations in full:
Area co-ordination of provision to support sufficiency, efficiency, quality and equality:
A single post-16 commissioning and regulatory process which applies to all providers and promotes efficiency, sufficiency, quality and equality and ends siloed regulation.
Clear conditions for funding, market entry and continued market presence based on strong local co-ordination.
A co-ordination process designed to protect successful specialist or ‘minority’ provision using a rules-based framework.
Cohort growth seen as an opportunity to promote efficiency and sufficiency with a temporary moratorium on 16 to 19 market entry.
Clear conditions for continued market presence based on the current size requirement for new sixth forms.
Where more provision is needed, commissioners to be required to formally agree that any new provider should meet these conditions without destabilising or fragmenting existing local provision in a way which jeopardises efficiency, sufficiency, quality or equality and has appropriately qualified staff, equipment and resources to do so in a viable fashion at both course and cohort level.
Investing in anchor institutions as hubs for specialist or ‘minority’ provision
Providers which have the track record and capacity to deliver specialist or ‘minority’ programmes successfully and efficiently to have ‘first call’ on investment.
Successful colleges are anchor institutions in their local economies but require significant capital investment to remain so, starting with a £240m capital injection followed by recurrent, formula driven building and equipment budgets.
A challenge fund to be put in place to support start-up costs for new areas that are highly specialised.
A rules-based framework
The Department for Education (DfE) should:
develop a rules-based framework to include:
o target minimum and average class sizes for all providers.
o subject level viability models based on cohort size.
o ringfencing of 16-19 funding for 16-19 learners.
require providers to engage with area coordination, with a duty to establish network strategies.
use its powers to review and consolidate the most inefficient providers.
undertake a back-to-basics review of the post-16 funding formula to determine if block, cohort or student funding drive the behaviours which optimise efficiency, quality and sufficiency.
define sparsity as a new element in the post-16 funding formula for areas that are extremely rural.
Ofsted should:
• inspect against such a framework to ensure that public resources are being deployed efficiently and responsibly.
